Thermoeconomic Analysis of an Innovative Integrated System for Cogeneration of Liquid Hydrogen and Biomethane by a Cryogenic-Based Biogas Upgrading Cycle and Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Electrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen (H 2 ) as an ecofriendly alternative to fossil fuels faces challenges in storing large capacities for extended transportation due to its low volumetric energy density. Also, common large-scale storage techniques for H 2 are associated with high energy consumption, which is potentially at odds with the environmental benefits. The multiproduct H 2 storage systems are associated with enhancing efficiency and environmental sustainability, leading to significant cost savings and minimizing waste production. In this paper, an integrated system that cogenerates liquids H 2 and biomethane is designed using low-temperature cascade refrigeration processes, cryogenic-based biogas purification cycle, proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis, and organic Rankine plant. A two-stage mixed refrigerant refrigeration process is employed for purifying untreated biogas, liquefying biomethane, and precooling H 2 generated by a PEM electrolyzer. Four H 2 Joule-Brayton refrigeration systems are used to liquefy H 2 in the hybrid system. This hybrid configuration purifies 2917 kg/h unrefined biogas and uses 27.71 MW power to produce 416.6 kg/h liquid H 2 and 674 kg/h liquid biomethane. The energy and exergy efficiencies for the designed integrated process are calculated at 54.65% and 56.67%, respectively. The system exergy analysis reveals that the electrolyzer (77.94%), heat exchangers (10.61%), and compressors (5.69%) are the principal equipment in exergy destruction. Pinch analysis is employed to design heat exchanger networks and reduce energy consumption effectively. According to the economic analysis, the investment return period and the prime cost of H 2 are 5.589 years and 3.539 USD/kgLH 2, respectively. The parametric sensitivity analysis demonstrates that lowering the electricity cost from 0.1 to 0.03 USD/kWh leads to a decrease in the prime cost of liquid H 2 and the investment return period to 2.205 USD/kgLH 2 and 4.251 years, respectively. Moreover, increasing the outlet pressure of the turbo-expander in the cryogenic refrigeration cycle from 100 to 220 kPa results in an increase in exergy efficiency and net annual benefit to 56.67% and 13.89 MMUSD/year, respectively, and a reduction in the prime cost of liquid H 2 to 3.536 USD/kgLH 2 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".